How do cognitive impairments affect administrative appeal deadlines? Millet v. Workforce Services Explained

In Millet v. Workforce Services, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether cognitive impairments can constitute good cause for filing an untimely administrative appeal and how such impairments should be considered in fraud determinations.

Background and Facts
Sharee Millet suffered from cognitive impairments due to a traumatic brain injury and “memory issues and difficulty dealing with legal matters.” When she applied for pandemic unemployment assistance, she received help from a neighbor who assisted her with administrative matters. After the Department of Workforce Services determined she had committed fraud and imposed nearly $14,000 in penalties, Millet’s appeal was filed 17 days after she received collection letters. Both the ALJ and Appeals Board rejected her appeal as untimely, finding no good cause despite acknowledging her cognitive condition.

Key Legal Issues
The court examined two critical questions: (1) whether the Board properly analyzed good cause for Millet’s untimely appeal given her cognitive impairments, and (2) whether those same impairments should affect the fraud determination. Under Utah Administrative Code R994-508-104, good cause may be shown through “compelling and reasonable” circumstances beyond the appellant’s control.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court identified two fundamental errors in the Board’s analysis. First, the Board improperly considered the capabilities of Millet’s neighbor, who had no legal responsibility to act on her behalf. The good cause inquiry focuses solely on the appellant’s circumstances, not those of voluntary helpers. Second, the Board failed to meaningfully assess whether Millet’s cognitive impairments were severe enough to constitute compelling and reasonable grounds for delay. While acknowledging her traumatic brain injury and difficulty with legal matters, the Board made no findings about how these conditions affected her ability to file timely appeals.

Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the importance of thorough analysis when cognitive impairments are at issue in administrative proceedings. Agencies cannot dismiss such claims without substantive evaluation of the condition’s impact on the claimant’s capabilities. The court also noted that if good cause is established, the Board must consider how cognitive impairments affect the knowledge element required for fraud, as claimants with severe impairments may lack the capacity to “know or should have known” information was incorrect.